The undersigned organizations and parliamentarians, representing large numbers of people from around the world, write to you to express our concern over the proposed withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty by the Bush administration, and our concern over the direction of US nuclear weapons policy as expressed in the recent nuclear posture review. This, combined with what seems to be a trend toward unilateral actions on a variety of fronts, can only serve to decrease the confidence of long-term US allies in US policy direction.

We strongly urge the Senate to do all that is in its power to prevent a withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

We further urge the Senate to impress on the administration the vital need for the US to demonstrate its determination to implement its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), especially Article VI, and the final document of the Year 2000 NPT Review Conference. In the light of recent revelations from the nuclear policy review this is now more important than ever.

The 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document committed nuclear weapon states to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. It also urged the '...early entry into force and the full implementation of START-II and the conclusion of START-III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons in accordance with its provisions'.

The US should not lightly set aside either the ABM treaty, or its obligations under the nearly universal NPT. The Senate has a clear duty and the power to ensure that it does not do so.

At a time when the US is working with a broad- based coalition of nations (including Russia and China) in the struggle against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an important arms- control treaty sends a very negative signal to the rest of the world. Now more than ever, the US should be mindful of its international treaty obligations.

In the post-cold-war era, it is important to proceed with Russia toward the total and unequivical elimination of nuclear arsenals, and to immediately remove weapons systems from launch on warning status.

The agreements proposed for finalising in Moscow and Petersburg 23-25 May do not do this. The deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system will make it unlikely that such an agreement can be reached. Already, the Russian Duma has passed a motion urging the Russian government to examine Russia's military options in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

The deployment of a US BMD system will also give China a pretext to further upgrade its nuclear missiles, from the current 20 single- warhead ICBMs to a system with 200 much more sophisticated warheads. This is not in the security interests of the US.

The deployment of a US BMD system would have been of no utility whatsoever in preventing the terrible events of 11 September 2001. Such a system is of no relevance to the real security needs of the US, but diverts vital funding and attention from the measures that are truly required.

The US Congress had to approve the ABM treaty before it became the law of the United States. In 1798 when the US had to withdraw from a treaty with France, the then President John Adams, signed an act of Congress to withdraw from treaty obligations. In 1846, Congress had to pass a joint resolution to withdraw from a treaty with the UK. The administration arguably does not by itself have the power to abrogate the ABM Treaty in the face of clear opposition from Congress.

A number of key US Senators have strongly expressed opposition to US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and rightly so. It is vital that the good statements that have been made by you be translated into action.

There are a number of clear actions that the US should be taking instead of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

It is unfortunate and alarming that the current nuclear posture review seems to assume that nuclear weapons will remain a part of the US strategic posture indefinitely, and envisages even the development of new varieties of nuclear weapon. This is directly contrary to US obligations under the NPT as reinforced by the final document of the year 2000 NPT Review Conference.

We urge you to impress on other Senators and the Bush administration that the US, instead of proceeding to withdrawal from the ABMTreaty, should instead place the highest priority on the implementation of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and the 13 points of the final document of the NPT Review Conference, on which international attention will be focussed at the NPT Prepcom of 8-19 April.

To Reiterate:
--The US should be seen to be clearly proceeding toward the implementation of its NPT obligations, to accomplish the total and unequivocal elimination of its nuclear arsenal.

--We strongly urge the Senate to do all in its power to prevent withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.